Mitt Romney has focused his run for
the presidency on the superior skills he developed as a successful
businessman, asserting that he alone has the knowledge, the
experience, and the personal grit needed to repair the U.S. economy.
Let us accept for a moment that Romney’s preferred narrative
is true, i.e., that he actually was a respectable and honorable
businessman, not just a predatory capitalist who bought up failing
companies so he could enrich himself by stripping them of their
assets and putting their employees out of work. If Mitt is the real
thing, one should expect a president who will be a careful and
cautious manager, making rational decisions based on available
information, because whether businesses succeed or fail frequently
depends on making the right judgments at the right time. Government
admittedly provides services that do not exactly fit into a normal
business model, but there nevertheless exists a broad consensus that
a rational process should prevail that confers benefits on most of
the citizens most of the time. As the dissatisfaction of most
Americans with the status quo derives from the belief that the
federal government is reckless and unresponsive and does not actually
address the needs of the people, Romney’s claim that he can
right what is wrong in the economy provides a compelling reason to
vote for him.

In domestic policy, a businesslike
approach would mean that you balance income and expenses so that you
pay your bills because no business can avoid bankruptcy if it
constantly runs a deficit. And in terms of foreign and defense
policy it means that you pursue objectives that are in the national
interest and that are both achievable and affordable because no
country can long survive if it spends money that it does not have
attempting to do things that bring no actual benefits.

So how does a businessman who
becomes president actually fix what is broken? Well, first there is
the federal budget, which drives both domestic spending and foreign
adventures. Given the size of the deficit, there is no
alternative to reducing spending combined with increasing revenue.
One might well argue about precisely where to reduce spending, but
it would seem to me that the approximate trillion dollars that are
budgeted annually on what is referred to as defense is at least
partially discretionary spending because it can be reduced
substantially and quickly by cutting back on Washington’s
overseas commitments. It could be done without damaging social
programs that actually provide benefits to the American people. And
to raise additional revenue to narrow the budget gap, rescinding the
Bush tax cuts that have frequently been described as being for the
wealthy would also be a good place to start.

So what are Romney and his running
mate Paul Ryan proposing?
Making the Bush cuts permanent and adding on more breaks for the
wealthy by reducing the tax brackets, which will shift the tax
burden onto America’s vanishing middle class. Someone making
a million dollars will pay $285,000 less in taxes under the Romney plan.
And there will also be increased defense spending. Ryan has
accepted
the necessity of changes in entitlement programs that tens of
millions depend on, including Social Security and Medicare, rather
than touching the Pentagon budget because the “first job of
government is to secure the safety and liberty of its citizens.”
That means the trillion-dollar-plus annual deficits will continue
indefinitely, at least until the United States completely runs out
of money, which might be sooner than anyone thinks possible. If the
U.S. dollar were not a world reserve currency, enabling the Treasury to
print money, it would have likely happened already.

And then there is foreign policy. A
businessman would first have to look at the ongoing war in
Afghanistan. It costs between $8 billion and $10 billion a month, continues
to kill American soldiers and Afghans at an alarming rate, and there
is no end in sight despite some vague assurances that all combat
troops will be gone by the end of 2014 conditions “on the
ground” permitting. Staying in Afghanistan serves no
conceivable national interest except the vaguely defined objective
of “keeping terrorists out.” Even if the U.S. leaves the
country, it is still committed to providing massive military and
economic assistance for the foreseeable future, aid that would be
going to a government that is completely corrupt and that has been
frequently linked to international drug trafficking. Afghanistan is
in reality a narco-state, while its government is confronting an
insurgency that is growing stronger as the regime grows less and
less effective or relevant. Which means that eventually all the
lives lost and money wasted will produce no result that would be
welcomed by Washington. The Taliban will be back.

So what does Mitt Romney the
business guru take from all of that? He maintains
that the war must be continued for as long as the generals endorse
continued fighting, until something called “victory” is achieved. And
as there is no such thing as a U.S. general who would concede that a
war is unwinnable, the fighting and
bleeding will go on. So much for rational analysis from a business
viewpoint.

And then there
is Israel. Israel is no strategic asset for the United States and
is instead threatening to involve Washington in a preemptive war
with Iran that is completely unnecessary in terms of U.S. national
security. Tel Aviv also forces the United States to take untenable
positions in international forums like the United Nations to shield it
from criticism, a net loss for American global interests. The
relationship costs the U.S. taxpayer in excess of $3 billion per year
in aid exclusive of tax breaks and co-production programs that make
the actual figure much higher. Mitt’s businesslike response?
He gave Israel a green light to attack Iran and said
that Washington and Tel Aviv should “use any and all measures”
against the Iranians. He added
that the U.S. has a “moral imperative” to defend Israel.

And then there are the little
wars of choice erupting in Africa and Asia. Is the United States
actually threatened by what is going on in Yemen, Somalia, Uganda,
Kenya, and Syria? No, so the question must be, “Why are we
there?” A businessman would recognize that there is no net
gain in wasting resources on situations that cannot be resolved and
that will not produce any benefit for the shareholders, in this case,
U.S. citizens. Mitt, however, supports the global war on terror on
every level and wants to increase the Pentagon budget to more
aggressively fight America’s enemies, which apparently now include
Russia.

So much for business acumen as a
desirable quality for America’s next president, as it apparently
has nothing to do with how one would govern. Clearly, Mitt Romney
employs no deductive process to determine what makes sense and what
doesn’t and is instead driven by a bundle of presuppositions
about what he thinks he is supposed to do. In that respect he
differs little from George W. Bush or Barack Obama except that he
might actually be more boneheaded. And some of his choices might
prove to be more dangerous than what we have already experienced.
If Romney truly follows the business model that he established with
Bain Capital, his intention might be to strip the United States of
its remaining assets while producing absolutely nothing that has any
value before shutting the enterprise down and putting all of us out
to pasture. Will that finally be enough to make the American people
really, really angry? I hope so.

201204119616 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2Fgiraldi%2F2012%2F08%2F15%2Fromney-the-businessman%2FRomney+the+Businessman%3F2012-08-16+06%3A00%3A29Philip+Giraldihttp%3A%2F%2Foriginal.antiwar.com%2F%3Fp%3D2012041196 to “Romney the Businessman?”

I used to be a fairly large sized businessman myself. I think everything you say is true. I also think Romney knows the same things you say is true. Ryan, who knows budgeting, knows the same things. The big secret is will Romney govern as he has so far campaigned? I don't think Romney has any choice as a sane manager, but to cut back on these foreign and military commitments. In fact I expect him to make some moves in that direction soon in his campaign. Because if he does not he can't be elected. I think either Romney or Obama or both are going to move toward peace. This reminds me of the 1968 campaign where Humphrey moved to the peace camp late in the race and picked up significantly to almost tie the race at the end. Nixon already had campaigned that he ahd a secret plan to end the war. I also think this is why Netanyahu is so hyper for war now. Deep down he knows both Romney and Obama want nothing to do with another war. The electorate is sick to death of wars and warmongers.

Pity the poor guy a little: Romney's problem is that he has to be to the right of Obama, but on foreign policy, Obama is already so far to the Imperial/war party side that the only room Romney can find is with policies that are just plain insane. How can you offer to be tougher on Islamists and their American sympathizers than killing them with drones wherever you find them? What can he say- that he'd kill them deader, and with less due process than none? Keep people in prison longer than forever? Or wars: Obama's kept up just about every war he could, and got one going in Libya that no one expected. What's Mitt going to propose- invade Mexico?

Wait- shouldn't say that too loudly; Mitt might be listening.

Too bad Mitt hasn't heard of the old right, who would have a lot to say about all of this, and would call a halt.

But when you're up against the Democrat who rules as an imperialist, there's not a lot of daylight to the right short of the lunatic fringe, and that's where Romney is sitting right now.

Not again the tax angle. "Repealing the tax cuts", i.e. "increase taxes (on the rich)". What for? To give the money to a government that doesn't know what to do with it, doesn't know how to spend it sensibly except burn it via wastefully inefficient policies like wars, indeed never has enough of it – inasmuch that a 40 trillion dollar crater has opened. Why? WHY? So that something is left over for national education? While one goes into debt? How does that make even sense?

If we just want to take down "the rich" a bit, hell, just order a bomber strike on the suburbs of Houston, Seattle, NY etc. etc. or tell the workers to go home then nuke their factories (except Government Motors of course). Workers and wage-earners won't like a bit but that's basically what taxing is about.

As I have come to expect from Mr. Giraldi…great analysis and articulation. There can be no doubt of the fact that Israel is "the tail that wags the Washington dog." The fact that Iran has halted development of a nuclear weapon long ago and that Tel Aviv has some 300 nuclear weapons in her arsenal…I don't see any imminent threat to Israel from Iran. I think were the general public to understand this disparity in nuclear weapons availability and the fact that the US gave Iran its first nuclear reactor under the Shah's tutleage in 1983…perhaps they would not continue to cast Iran as the devil in this exchange.

Taxes are not the problem, spending is the problem. If Congress made tax rates 100% (assuming the economy would still function), the government would still complain about not having enough money.
If we're going to have a tax, why not tax everybody at the same rate, say 15%? When they start making exceptions based on lifestyles (such as how many kids you have, whether you rent or own, etc.), then we end up in the morass we're in now.
There should be no discrimination based on income. You go into the grocery store to buy a can of beans, it should be the same price for everybody.

But I digress. Government spends too much! Do I need to describe the ways?

In almost 100% of the time , the really rich have gotten that way through either control of the government or at least unfair help from them. So , yes they should give back more, a lot more. Your Rush Limbaugh position follows that there should be no taxation. Which is truly insane. The problem is with our government not the concept of taxes. Every developed country in the world has higher taxes than we do. Yet we are the most corrupt. That is because the rich control the government, give them more we will just serve their interests more. Put down your Ayn Rand books and start traveling ithe real world for a change.

[…] Mitt Romney has focused his run for the presidency on the superior skills he developed as a successful businessman, asserting that he alone has the knowledge, the experience, and the personal grit needed to repair the U.S. economy. Let us accept for a moment that Romney’s preferred narrative is true, i.e., that he actually was a respectable and honorable businessman, not just a predatory capitalist who bought up failing companies so he could enrich himself by stripping them of their assets and putting their employees out of work. If Mitt is the real thing, one should expect a president who will be a careful and cautious manager, making rational decisions based on available information, because whether businesses succeed or fail frequently depends on making the right judgments at the right time. http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2012/08/15/romney-the-businessman/ […]

Is there any doubt that a Romney administration would favor the rich and increase the income gap in our country? Mitt is a pariah in Mormon Clothing and will stop at nothing to expand an empire of greed for the rich in this country by expanding tax cuts for the 1% of the wealthiest Americans. He’s out to gut the Middle Class for every red cent he can get. Will his sacred Mormon underwear grant him the protection and money to buy this election? See for yourself as Mitt dons his tighty-whities sent down from the Good Lord Himself at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/05/mitt-r…

Yes, I live in America because I really really want to live in Europe. Europe by the way is just booming. Do you apply for a tax refund or do you just pay extra? Why should I want to pay to be groped at the airport and spied on,bank bailouts,busted car companies, foreign country bailouts, think tanks, the UN, lousy education, forced to pay for someone else's war on whatever the flavor of the month is: obesity, poverty, drugs, foreigners I never met, rich people etc…
The rich control the government? You mean the rich people "make" them pass those laws that help some of those other businesses, agriculture, banks, pharma etc… no one in Washington can say "no"?

In Ayn Rand's books engineers and innovators are the heroes, self made men or inherited wealth made productive

The "aristocracy of pull" she narrates in outstanding detail in Atlas is exactly what she was against–that is, those who have "pull" in Washington to get subsidies, loans, grants and monopolies to pursue a "wealth" that pretty much self-immolates in the end.

It is not true that "in almost 100% of the time" (which means what, exactly, 99%? 92% 81%?) the rich have gotten that way through government help or something called "unfair help". In the 19th century, when taxes in the US were laughably low, this country was built by industrialists who had free rein to build and not be punished for it. And before you start in with nonsense about the "evil Carnegie" and the rest of it, bow when you pass a library, a museum or a great US university because he built them all, "almost 100%".

We are a corrupt country but not the most corrupt. And the social democracies of Europe are on life support. I know, I live there.